sschlichter

if it is dated in the late 2nd century, then no. it alone does not discredit your theory. it doesn't help it either. Don't you find it strange that all mss are quite similar. Wouldn't you expect to find greater variances among texts found in the same period?

aa5874

Once there are extremely large discrepancies of over 100 years [85-200 CE] in the dating of a writing then authorship, veracity and chronology become very important issues.

It must be obvious that it was very unlikely that the same author could have written at 85 CE or 200 CE. Averaging large discrepancies only resolves a mathematical function.

spin

You don't have to exaggerate for effect. I cited you Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, the Syriac versions, Vulgate versions. Your response is somewhere else totally. You haven't dealt with the manuscript tradition and show no inclination to. You just have an anomalous member of the Alexandrian tradition, which you hold up because of its comparative age while keeping your head buried deep in the sand.

(And I'll go with the top scholarship of NA27 and it's "ca. 200" as against your slavish acceptance of self-serving datings.)


spin

spamandham

It doesn't matter if it dates to specifically the late 2nd century, as there is no reason to presuppose that the shenanigans of the late 2nd century were unique to those few decades. The simplest position is that the same thing was going on in the earlier stages of Christianity as well (and in the culture at large), and later too. We even see direct evidence of that in the canon, with the existence of the 3 synoptic Gospels.

I conclude from all this that it was acceptable in those days to modify the works of others and pass it on, as well as to attach the name of a legendary figure to one's own work. This was the norm rather than an aberration, and that's why I *assume* the works of Paul are actually the works of multiple authors over some unknown period of time.

The hypothesis is not spurious, but based on cultural evidence. Scholarly analysis that started with an assumption of single authorship has been forced to arrive at the same conclusion I start with, which is a strong validation of the hypothesis.

I think that depends on what point a text is considered sacred. Prior to that mystique, I would expect to find notable differences between copies of the "same" text - such as is the case with the synoptic gospels. But once they came to be considered scripture, less so, which is why the gospels eventually became mostly frozen in time, even though there clearly was a period when they were not.

Shantanu

If there was a God, He would have in place an easy means by which He communicates with human beings given that He is supposed to have given us the religions by divine inspiration to guide us into how we humans should be leading our lives. God needs to be able to act on us humans making us do things either by thought transfer or by direct control of our body parts and its movements. That means that God should be within us and without us as an immanent principle coming alive whenever He needs to. That is why Atheists ask for Evidence of God outside the Gospels. What is wrong with that?

avi

a. what evidence is that?
b. acknowledgement of "interpolation", i.e. forgery, in certain aspects of the new testament, in any century, opens Pandora's box, so now the claim that "the" bible is not a work of forgery becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
c. Even if one's starting point is that external conditions (repression, murder, incarceration, torture, denial of access to papyrus) were more harsh in the days of the "early church", compared with life subsequent to Constantine, one nevertheless still must presume that the "early church" "fathers", i.e. salesmen, did not conduct themselves, vis a vis "interpolation", as did their descendants, an improbable supposition.

What is puzzling to me, about this thread, is how it has evolved from a discussion about the rationale for demanding evidence apart from the new testament to understand the historical aspects of life 2000 years ago in the Roman Empire, to a question of estimating the ages of various early manuscripts, each of which relates to the new testament itself, not to evidence outside that collection of "interpolations".

avi

Doug Shaver

I take it that Steve is attempting to respond, perhaps indirectly, to the OP as follows: There is no rationale for seeking evidence outside the NT because the NT itself is sufficiently reliable to provide all the evidence anyone really needs.

Derec

Very related to that are some writings by proto-orthodox Christians

This is from very early 2nd century.
There would be no reason for Ignatius to emphatically pond these points to his audience unless these points were disputed among early Christians.

bacht

Assuming there is a God or gods I see nothing illogical with your idea. The Jews pictured their God as a being external to human life but still involved through appeals to our free will. Immanence is another possibility but Christian orthodoxy follows the Jewish pattern. The Greeks and Romans envisioned their deities as physically separate from us also, but I think Stoics imagined the Logos as somehow permeating all matter.

aa5874

What you say may not be true at all. Why do you impose conditions on an unknown entity?

What is almost certain is that the Gods presented are all man-made.

And now, look at your post. Do you see that you are making your own God?

Why should God do what you want him to do or be what you want him to be?

What you need is evidence of what God did and evidence to be able to identify him, otherwise you will continue to make your own God without evidence.